SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rakesh Bagri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2017

1

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28065/2017 (Rakesh vs. State of M.P.)

M.Cr.C. No.28065/2017
(Rakesh Bagri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Indore, Dated: 26/12/2017

Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent / State.

Case diary is available.

This is first bail application filed by the applicant under
section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
bail.

The accused/applicant is arrested by Police on
24/10/2017 in Crime No. 302/2017, Police Station
Nahargarh, District Mandsaur concerning offence(s) under
Section(s) 354, 506 of IPC and 7/8 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as
the POCSO Act).

The allegation against the applicant is that on
13/09/2017 he outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix, a
minor girl, aged about 13 years, by catching hold of her
hand.

Arguments heard, case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
applicant himself is 19 years old and is in jail since
24/10/2017 and that charge-sheet has been filed. It is further
2

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28065/2017 (Rakesh vs. State of M.P.)

submitted that trial is likely to take sufficiently long time to
conclude.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
opposed the bail application submitting that the prosecutrix,
in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, had
made specific allegation against the applicant and it is on
record that he has also caught hold of her hand.

After perusing the case diary and taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed
under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One
lakh only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on
all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
during trial.

He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.

Having passed the aforesaid order, this court is also at
pains to see the ever increasing number of cases involving
rape or sexual assault on minors despite the enactment of the
POCSO in the year 2012. Undoubtedly, the POCSO Act
3

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28065/2017 (Rakesh vs. State of M.P.)

provides various remedies for such victims but almost all of
them are only corrective in nature and appear to have no
effect either on the offenders or the victims who are also the
consenting parties in many a cases, this problem, in the
considered opinion of this court is apparently on account of
lack of knowledge on the part of the accused as well as the
victims about the POCSO Act. This ”ignorance of law”
apparently is not an excuse for the accused persons while
defending their case but this does not also absolve the
Government, either Union or State to not to educate the
people about the same specially when the POCSO Act in
itself provides for the same.

In this regard reference may be made to s.43 of the
POCSO Act which reads as under:-

” 43. Public awareness about Act : The Central
Government and every State Government,
shall take all measures to ensure that–

(a) the provisions of this Act are
given wide publicity through media including
the television, radio and the print media at
regular intervals to make the general public,
children as well as their parents and guardians
aware of the provisions of this Act;

(b) the officers of the Central
Government and the State Governments and
other concerned persons (including the police
officers) are imparted periodic training on the
matters relating to the implementation of the
provisions of the Act.”

Apparently, as per the aforesaid provision, the Central
4

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28065/2017 (Rakesh vs. State of M.P.)

Government as also all the State Governments are obliged to
spread the public awareness regarding the various provisions
of this Act but as already observed, there appears to be no
reduction in the crimes which are punishable under the
POSCO Act which in itself is a proof of its ignorance. This
court has no hesitation to observe that there appears to be
some lethargy on the part of the Governments to implement
the law in its true letter and spirit as no such public awareness
campaigns are ever heard of as we do in case of “Swachh
Bharat” and this is despite the fact that we owe our children
more than we do to our streets.

It might be that some steps must have been taken by the
Governments as the Act came into force in the year 2012
hence, it is directed to the Chief Secretary, State of M.P. to
submit its report to the registry of the Court in six weeks time
regarding the steps which have been taken by the State
Government in last one year, with special reference to tribal
areas, to spread the awareness of this Act. This court is
constrained to pass this order as it is also not only duty bound
to punish the offenders under the Act but also to secure the
rule of law and to ensure the proper implementation of the
Act.

A certified copy of this order be sent to the Chief
Secretary, State of M.P., the same be also provided to the
office of the Advocate General for its compliance by the
Chief Secretary of the State of M.P. and a certified copy be
5

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.28065/2017 (Rakesh vs. State of M.P.)

also sent to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India for necessary action.

Although, the present bail application has already been
allowed but the same is not being disposed of for monitoring
the aforesaid order passed today by this Court.

List the matter on the top of the list on 14.02.2018 for
further order.

C.C.as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
VACATION JUDGE
sumathi

Sumati
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
DN: cIN, oHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh,
ouAdministration, postalCode452001, stMadhya
Pradesh,

Jagadeesan 2.5.4.20c924c30fdbbbe5bd3576e03ddd1b95d94f157e8aec
842e0acdbeed50df87856b, cnSumati Jagadeesan
Date: 2017.12.27 16:36:40 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh